Warbird Information Exchange

The big green dilemma
Air travel is becoming as controversial as wearing a fur coat or smoking while pregnant. But do we really have to feel guilty about flying?
The Observer (UK) 07/02/2007
Author: Tom Robbins
Copyright (C) 2007; Source: World Reporter (TM)


'We still have time, but not for long - it all comes down to us now.' There is no doubting the seriousness or sincerity of the protesters putting the final touches to plans for a campaign of direct action next month. Sometimes their communications even assume a biblical tone: 'Should we not change our ways, we'll see forests burn, soils decay, oceans rise and millions of people die.' Their methods, including a huge protest camp and co-ordinated civil disobedience, echo those of past campaigns against the Vietnam War, nuclear weapons, and oppressive regimes abroad. But this time, the mission is not to stop wars, bombs or torture, it's to stop people going on holiday.

Thousands of activists are expected to descend on Heathrow for the Camp for Climate Action from 14 to 21 August. There will be workshops on issues from carbon offsetting and biofuels to campaign strategy and skills for direct action, and the week will climax with a day when demonstrators will try to disrupt the airport as much as possible.

Never before has flying been so controversial. In the space of two years, the environmental damage done by planes has gone from being something quietly discussed by scientists and committed environmentalists, to a headline-grabbing issue no one can ignore. Politicians are pilloried in newspapers for flying to meetings abroad. Travellers checking in for domestic flights are confronted by Greenpeace campaigners urging them to take the train instead. Travel agents' shops are daubed in protesters' paint and travel magazines get hate-mail.

Even those who fly once or twice a year on holiday can't help but feel a growing sense of guilt, while those opting for trips by car, train or ferry have a self-righteous spring in their steps.

Now, however, the backlash is beginning. The tourism and aviation industries are mobilising, setting up lobbying groups, and pointing out some awkward facts. Did you know, for example, that some ferries emit far more carbon dioxide than some planes? That driving can release twice as much carbon as flying? A new report from Balpa, the pilot's union, even claims that planes can be better than taking the train. And at last month's Paris Airshow, Airbus bosses unveiled their own, very different, solution to climate change - promising to 'save the planet, one A380 at a time'. That's A380, as in the vast double-decker airliner about to enter service. So who do you believe?

One thing on which all sides agree is that aviation is booming. Today there are around 17,700 commercial aircraft in the world. Over the next 20 years, manufacturers expect to deliver 25,600 new planes, with massive growth coming from China, India and Russia as economies develop and flying is deregulated.

'Aviation is here to stay and will grow faster than people expect,' said Praful Patel, India's civil aviation minister. 'Remember, India is a country of 1.1 billion people and fewer than 10 million fly even once a year.'

It's an unpalatable argument, but even if everyone in Britain were to stop flying tomorrow, in less than two years the total number of passengers worldwide would still be rising. This year there will be 2.2 billion air passengers worldwide and the total is currently growing by 4% a year, according to International Air Transport Association forecasts.

Airbus predicts the UK will buy 1,282 new airliners over the next 20 years, while America, China and India will buy 10,492. While UK passenger numbers are expected to grow over the next four years by 4 per cent per year on international flights, 3 per cent on domestic flights, India and China are predicted to grow by 8 per cent on international flights and 23 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively, on domestic flights.

Perhaps we can lead by example and so influence the world to cut back on flights too. Britons took 234m flights last year. Discounting the 20% in the population who never fly at all, this works out around five per person. To hit the government's target of a 60 per cent drop in carbon emissions by 2050, we simply need to slowly wean ourselves down to two annual flights - one return trip. Maybe, if planes get more efficient, we could still afford two.

And yet we still seem to be a long way from the kind of mass change in behaviour that would make this work. Recent surveys have suggested that 3 per cent of Britons have already stopped flying and a further 10 per cent have cut back, but people seem slower to practice what they preach - Ryanair say they have yet to notice any effect and have certainly yet to cancel a single flight as a result of such concerns. (It could be lying, but then why would it have 30 new planes on order?) Even if an individual route from the UK were to become unviable due to boycots by green travellers, the airlines, loathe to give up a landing slot, would simply switch to a new destination - likely to be one further afield in a developing economy where demand is growing fastest.

Moreover, with China building two new power stations per week, mostly coal-fired, it's easy to wonder if it's worth agonising about whether you should go for that long weekend in Tuscany. According to last year's government-commissioned report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern, power stations account for 24 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, shipping, train and road transport account for 12.3%, while flying accounts for just 1.7 per cent. Compare this with deforestation, which accounts for 18 per cent (half of which is attributed to the destruction of rainforests in two countries: Indonesia and Brazil).

That's not to say we're damned anyway, so let's get on the plane and keep partying till the world goes up in flames, but it does put the issue into balance - should we devote nine times more effort to fighting deforestation than flying? And being aware of the balance should steer us away from extreme positions - refusing to fly at all or ignoring the issue completely - towards taking practical, realistic steps to a solution.

A return flight to Barcelona, for example, emits around 260kg of carbon dioxide per passenger. By insulating your loft you can easily make up for this - it will save, on average, 1,500kg of CO per year. Replace 10 ordinary bulbs with energy saving ones, and you'll save 380kg. Chuck out your plasma TV and you'll save 404kg. Even turning off appliances instead of leaving them on standby will save 173kg - easily enough to allow a return flight to Paris or Amsterdam with a clear conscience.

'Dark green' environmentalists argue there is a bankrupt logic in this kind of carbon offsetting - you are doing the equivalent of donating to the RSPCA so you can keep kicking your dog, as the saying goes. You could, after all, take all those carbon-saving steps, and still cancel your holiday in Barcelona.

Except that assumes tourism is a frivolous, self-indulgent activity which is as pointless as leaving your TV on standby. Even putting aside the benefits to the tourists themselves, this is clearly not the case. Tourism employs around 231 million people, and generates 8-10 per cent of world GDP.

While the campaigners plot their camp at Heathrow, in Kenya plans are being drawn up for a very different camp. Looking out from an escarpment over the deserts of Samburuland is a stunning hotel, the Ol Malo Eco-Lodge. Revenue from the small number of visiting tourists has allowed the 5,000 acres around it to be transformed from over-grazed cattle ranch to a pristine conservation site, but that is just the start. The tourist-funded lodge provides the infrastructure and backup for a range of vital community work. Around 100 women are employed in the workshop making traditional beadwork for export, and the children come along to paint for fun.

More impressive still is the Ol Malo eye project. Up to 80 per cent of adults in the area suffer sight loss, caused by the infectious and preventable disease Trachoma, so the Ol Malo Trust runs regular surgical camps, bringing doctors from the UK to treat them. In January, the camp gave 102 people back their sight, and final plans are now being made for another camp this autumn. 'It's very simple - all of our visitors fly here,' said Julia Francombe, the founder. 'If they stopped coming, it would kill us.'

'Our message to all air passengers is to stop feeling guilty about flying,' said Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of the British Airline Pilots Association, unveiling a major study conducted by the union last month. 'We are now going to debunk the myths about air travel and spell out the facts.' Fine words but, given the level of self-interest and degree of enmity between those involved, getting the facts is a nightmarish task.

Launching the 82-page report, Granshaw pulled out one key point: 'Passengers going by high speed train to the south of France would be responsible for emitting more carbon dioxide than if they had flown there.'

I rang the union to check the figures and was directed to a section of the report quoting Roger Kemp, professor of engineering at Lancaster University. I then rang him. 'No, actually that's completely untrue,' he said. 'France generates about 80 per cent of its electricity using nuclear power, so if you wanted to go to the south of France, by far the best way to go is by TGV.'

But Kemp does go on to say that plane travel is not always automatically the worst choice environmentally. 'The worst way to get to the south of France is to take a car ferry then motorail, where you can end up with a diesel engine hauling a huge train with cars on wagons.'

A full plane, can sometimes compete with a car too. Paul Upham, a research fellow at the Tyndall Centre, calculated that travelling from Manchester to Guernsey on a full Saab 200 turbo-prop plane produced 103kg of carbon dioxide per person, compared with 226kg for a Nissan Micra carrying one person the same difference. He was quoted as concluding: 'Planes aren't the evil things relative to cars that people imagine.'

Ferries too, can't claim automatic green superiority. 'I have to admit that I rather enjoy ferry travel,' says Kemp. 'But if you start to do the analysis of that, it starts to look rather unattractive too, because of the power used to move not only the people, but the cabin, space for their car, the bars, nightclubs, and so on. I don't think there's much in it between taking the plane and taking the ferry.'

The reality is that analysing how various modes of transport compare is fiendishly complex. Some trains are far worse than others (increasing the top speed of trains from 125mph to 220mph can consume four times as much energy, while diesels can emit more than twice the carbon dioxide of electric trains). Some high-speed ferries, such as Stena Line's HSS craft, use double the fuel of conventional ships, making them several times worse than modern planes for carbon emissions (in fact the HSS is currently in storage because the fuel bills have made it unviable). Ultimately, experts admit that given the right circumstances, any method of transport can be made to come out on top.

On average, though, a car carrying several occupants is usually better than a plane, and trains are almost always the best of all. The UK government's calculations suggest a long-haul plane emits 110g of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre, a medium-sized car with two occupants the same, while the train emits 60g.

However, as the pollution from planes is emitted high in the atmosphere, its effects are far worse, and vapour trails (or 'contrails') lead to the formation of cirrus clouds, which stop heat escaping from the earth.

Most scientists agree that this 'radiative forcing' effect is real - and point to the significant cooling in America after all planes were grounded on 9/11 - but few agree on the scale of its effects. Current estimates are that before comparing a plane's emissions to those of a car or train, you would first have to double or triple them. 'The big problem is that there is no consensus on this and people seem to be becoming split along ideological lines with NGOs accepting the multiplier and industry not,' said Upham.

His Manchester-Guernsey calculation has made him the unwitting poster boy for the pro-aviation lobby, but his actual views are very different: 'Taking into account the contrails, flying is usually about nine times worse than taking the train, and three times worse than a car with two passengers.'

Given the world's apparently insatiable appetite for flying, and accepting it is seriously damaging for the environment, it becomes crucial to develop new and less polluting aircraft. Already, there is some progress: the new Boeing 747-800, which will enter service in 2009, is 16 per cent more fuel efficient than its predecessor, while the 787 'Dreamliner', which enters service next May, uses light carbon composites to cut fuel use by 20 per cent compared with the 767, and 70 percent compared to the 727 launched in 1963. Airbus's claim that it can save the world with the A380 may be far-fetched, but its 'gentle giant' plane is far more efficient and quieter than those of 20 years ago, while next year, Virgin is even planning to test fly a 747 on biofuel. Moves to reform the air-traffic control system so planes are not stuck in circling patterns are also vital. In Europe, this would cut carbon emissions by 12 per cent.

Some environmentalists, however, scorn these advances, saying such measures are a 'delusion', 'like holding out for cigarettes that don't cause cancer'. 'The aviation industry is prone to vastly overstating the gains that can be made from technological improvements but sadly a climate friendly plane isn't on the horizon,' says Emily Armistead of Greenpeace. 'The only way to deal with aviation's impact is to limit its expansion.'

So should we stop flying? If no one set foot on a plane again, it would undoubtedly help to stop climate change - though at the expense of killing off the tourism-based economies of many of the world's poorest countries. But in the real world, with the US and the developing world demanding thousands of new planes, surely we have to take a more sophisticated approach: to choose airlines with greener, newer fleets, and thus encourage plane makers to prioritise environmental performance; to travel to destinations that help local communities rather than destroy them; to take the train where possible; to reduce carbon emissions at home; and, above all, lobby politicians to tackle deforestation and to switch to green forms of energy.

Do all this, and we can start to cancel flights in the knowledge that it really will make a difference.

Airlines begin flying greener
Northwest is considering a program that lets customers pay a premium to help offset the impact of their flight by investing in projects that replenish the environment.
St. Paul Pioneer Press 07/08/2007
Author: Sheryl Jean


Airlines are the latest corporate giants to paint themselves "green" as they try to remake their image as jet-fuel guzzlers that pollute the air and contribute to global warming.

Delta Air Lines and Air Canada recently launched programs to let customers pay a premium to offset the environmental impact of their flight by investing in projects, such as wind farms and tree plantings, that replenish the environment. Continental Airlines plans to do the same later this summer. Northwest Airlines is looking into the concept. Travelers who opt for the program typically will pay less than $30 per flight for a clean conscience.

The airline industry appears to be taking emissions reduction seriously. The United States and the European Union recently agreed to improve the flow of air traffic and test new environmental measures. In addition to so-called carbon offset programs, airlines are taking many other steps to save fuel, cut emissions and increase their recycling.

"It's fairly innovative what they're doing," said Derik Broekhoff, a senior associate at World Resources Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank. "By total emissions, airlines probably aren't that bad. If you look at it per person, the emissions you cause when you fly on an airplane are a lot higher than many other activities you engage in. If you fly a lot, it is a big deal."

Carbon, a chemical found in all fossil fuels, is linked to climate change. The airline industry accounts for about 2 percent of global carbon emissions, but that amount is expected to reach 3 percent by 2050 as air travel grows. Airline carbon-offset programs are voluntary, and airline carbon credits don't change the amount of aircraft emissions released into the air. One skeptic points out that carbon offset doesn't mean much if you rent a Hummer once you get to where you're going.

"We're looking at it because it's the right thing to do," said Jim Herlihy, a spokesman for Eagan-based Northwest. "The environment is drawing a lot of attention now, as it rightfully should. It's a critical issue."

The first voluntary carbon-offset program dates to the late 1980s, but the concept has really taken off in the past year or so. It reaches beyond industry. The Olympics, World Cup Soccer and the Super Bowl have gone "carbon neutral." So have rock bands such as Barenaked Ladies, Coldplay and the Rolling Stones. Individuals can carbon-offset their cars, utility bills and music CDs.

Airplanes release carbon dioxide into the air from the fuel they burn. Carbon dioxide is linked to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Greenhouse gas emissions worldwide rose 70 percent from 1970 to 2004, according to the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Airlines burn a lot of fuel. An Airbus A320, for example, uses 2,253 gallons of fuel to fly one way from the Twin Cites to Boston, or the equivalent of 32 Ford Explorers driving the same route. (An A320 carries about 150 passengers; an Explorer up to seven.)

Commercial aircraft carbon dioxide emissions from jet fuel rose 15 percent from 1990 to 2005 versus a 22 percent increase for all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The theory behind carbon offsetting is that people can counterbalance the environmental effects of their actions with sustainable energy projects, such as tree planting, which helps absorb carbon dioxide and restore wildlife habitat.

Voluntary U.S. programs created about $100 million in offset transactions last year, according to the World Resources Institute.

British Airways was the first airline to launch a carbon-offset program in 2005. Air Canada did the same in late May. Delta Air Lines last month became the first U.S. airline to launch such a program.

When it comes to marketing, airlines don't tend to put carbon-offset programs center stage. Information often is buried on their Web sites and typically appears at the end of the online purchasing process - along with offers for travel insurance or rental cars. That could change as more airlines jump on the environmental bandwagon.

Terry Trippler, who follows airlines and operatestripplertravel.com in Minneapolis, wonders about the consumer demand for airline carbon offsets given the industry's problems with flight delays and customer service. "Travelers just want to get where they're going on time and have their bags show up, and that's it," Trippler said. "A lot of it is hot air. (Airlines) will jump on the bandwagon because it's a popular thing to do right now."

Some airlines say that's not true. Continental says its customers, mainly from Europe, have said that they "wanted to fly guilt-free and wanted to do something to offset their carbon emissions," said Leah Raney, senior director of environmental affairs.

Still, in an era where inflight meals are rare and some airlines are tacking on fees for aisle seats, are airline passengers willing to pay extra to help the environment? So far, results are mixed.

The response to Air Canada's program has exceeded expectations, said spokesman John Reber. In the first four weeks, several hundred people spent thousands of dollars to offset several hundred tons of carbon dioxide with a tree-planting program through the nonprofit Zerofootprint, a Toronto-based carbon offset service, he said.

At British Airways, less than 1 percent of travelers have participated in a 2-year-old carbon offset program, said spokesman John Lampl. "We had hoped there'd be greater interest," he said. "One of the problems has been that we launched the program in the United Kingdom and Europe, not worldwide. I think that's going to change."

The main concerns with voluntary carbon-offset programs are that there are no accounting and auditing standards, environmental and transportation experts say. They can use different calculation methods, different project criteria and different auditing standards.

"Whether carbon offset programs are successful is hard to tell because you don't know what the alternative would have been," said Ken Button, director of the George Mason University's Center for Transportation Policy and Logistics in Virginia. "They say it reduces things by X but you don't know what the baseline is to reduce X."

Airlines use carbon calculators to estimate the environmental impact of a passenger's trip - depending on the flight's distance.

For example, Air Canada's partner Zerofootprint calculates 0.68 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted on shorter domestic flights (1,430 miles), taking into account the average fuel consumption of the airline's planes and the weight of baggage. That means a passenger would pay $1.51 to offset his share of carbon emissions for a round-trip flight from the Twin Cities to Chicago or $19.65 to London.

Continental's partner Sustainable Travel International uses about 0.65 tons, but Raney said the calculator would be customized for Continental's fleet and the offset cost should be no more than $30.

Delta's carbon-offset program is different in that it has preset payment amounts of $5.50 for a U.S. roundtrip flight and $11 for an international flight, which will be used by the Conservation Fund to plant trees worldwide.

Broekhoff of the World Resources Institute raised these questions: "Who's checking whether the reductions actually happen? How do they calculate the emissions and what are they using to offset the emissions? How much money is going to the projects?"

That's why it's important to find the right carbon-offset partner, airline officials say.

Northwest's Herlihy said the airline is reviewing its options and talking with several potential partners "based on their credibility, transparencies and meaningfulness of the projects," he said.

Delta's partner, the Conservation Fund, says it uses accounting standards and procedures under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol to calculate carbon offset amounts.

Continental liked Boulder, Colo.-based Sustainable Travel International's strong audit process, Raney said. A third party must independently verify the group's carbon offsets and its sustainable development projects must follow CDM Gold Standard or the Kyoto Protocol guidelines. Looking ahead, the airline industry is divided over how and when to reduce its carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The International Air Transport Association supports a voluntary global emissions-trading platform like in Europe to help reach a long-term goal of zero emissions.

The Air Transport Association, a trade group of the largest U.S. airlines, advocates fuel efficiency programs instead. Most experts believe the industry will reduce emissions through a combination of carbon offsets, advanced aircraft engineering and alternative aviation fuels.

Already, U.S. airlines conserve fuel by decreasing the weight of planes by carrying less water and lighter equipment; reducing engine use on the ground; and using electric ground service vehicles. Overall, they improved fuel efficiency by 28 percent from 2000 to 2006, saving 1.7 billion gallons of fuel and cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 17.6 million tons, according to the Air Transport Association.

The important thing, Button of George Mason University says, is that "there's been a change in the attitude toward the environment."

Can air travel be green?
The Age 07/09/2007
Author: Leon Gettler


The airline industry seems to be finally confronting its impact on climate change. In the past few weeks, we have seen an outbreak of announcements about greener planes and carbon neutral flights.

Boeing has unveiled its Dreamliner jet, a plastic "green" jet built to use up to 20 per cent less fuel while pumping out fewer greenhouse gases. Airbus has announced its A380 which burns less fuel produces less carbon dioxide per passenger/kilometre.

But can air travel ever really be green?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the warming effect of greenhouse gases emitted by planes is 2.7 times that of carbon dioxide alone. In Australia, emissions from domestic aviation represent just 1 per cent of total emissions. But Australian Greenhouse Office statistics tell us that by 2010 they will be 101 per cent higher than 1990 levels. The introduction of Tiger Airways, and the competitive response from Qantas and Virgin, would exacerbate the problem.

The reality is that globally, the aviation industry is booming with about 17,700 commercial aircraft now operating around the world, up to 27,000 new planes expected to be delivered over the next 20 years, and the number of air travellers set to double to nine billion. So if everyone in Australia stopped flying, the number of passengers globally would still increase. And it would destroy the tourism industry in the process.

As Tim Robbins noted in The Observer earlier this month, power stations account for 24 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, shipping, train and roads account for 12.3 per cent and while flying accounts for 1.7 per cent. And deforestation accounts for 18 per cent. So what's needed, Robbins says, is a more sophisticated approach: choose airlines with greener, newer fleets, encourage plane makers to prioritise the environment, reduce carbon emissions at home and lobby politicians.

Writing in Greenbiz.com, Joel Makower makes the point that the airlines' response so far is next to useless. It's just business as usual. He says the way to tackle the problem is for the airlines to consider a mandatory emissions offset market, and increase their technological, operational and management measures to address the problem.

I suspect carbon emissions and global warming might well be the airline industry's sleeper. Carbon offsetting under an emissions trading scheme could well result in higher fares, which may price some people away from planes. Welcome to the nightmare scenario for the aviation and tourism industries, a back-to-the-future world of the 1940s where only the rich could fly.